Pollution, stress response, and obesity: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited literature addresses the association between pollution, stress, and obesity, and knowledge synthesis on the associations between these three topics has yet to be made. Two reviewers independently conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection databases to identify studies dealing with the effects of semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, conservatives, and heavy metals on the psychosocial stress response and adiposity in humans, animals, and cells. The quality of papers and risk assessment were evaluated with ToxRTool, BEES-C instrument score, SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, and CAMARADES checklist. A protocol for the systematic review was registered on PROSPERO. Of 1869 identified references, 63 were eligible after title and abstract screening, 42 after full-text reading, and risk of bias and quality assessment. An important body of evidence shows a positive association between pollution, stress response, and obesity. Pollution stimulates the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis by activating the glucocorticoid receptor signaling and transcriptional factors responsible for adipocyte differentiation, hyperphagia, and obesity. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals also alter the Peroxisome Proliferator-activated Receptor gamma pathway to promote adipocyte hyperplasia and hypertrophy. However, these associations depend on sex, age, and pollutant type. Our findings evidence that pollution promotes stress, leading to obesity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".